ABSTRACT
Reproducing diary jottings, reminiscences reprised years after they were constructed, out of context and from a previous era of development, is not necessarily relevant or defensible. However, in this case, it seems rather appropriate, not least because of the enduring topicality of urban renewal in the late 1990s. As the quote implies, the image of old industrial areas has not always been positive. Indeed, cynics might argue that some elements of policy —at least as enacted at the central government level-have reflected the Crossman line ever since the 1960s. There seems to have been a predilection for redevelopment of old industrial areas rather than refurbishment particularly in those areas under the jurisdiction of Urban Development Corporations.2 The scarcity of research on industrial buildings means that the issues associated with their occupancy, vacancy or demise have not been widely explored. However, the perceived economics of refurbishment against redevelopment and reconstruction, coupled with the ever acuter sense of locational image, have combined to render the retention of older buildings a less than popular commercial option. Despite this, there is a strong argument that in many areas, assuming acceptable levels of demand, the costs of re-use are lower than new-build alternatives.
